Text Size

PHOTOS: Fiscal cliff's key players

Boehner on Hill stalemate

Obama: GOP 'lump of coal'

But Democrats, feeling like they have serious leverage, believe the only path for a deal is to pass a middle-class tax cut package to pave the way for larger fiscal negotiations in 2013 over taxes and spending.

“You can smell the winds,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), No. 3 in his party’s leadership, said Thursday. “When so many Republicans say, ‘Hey, we’re going to have to give into the Democrats,’ that’s how it works around here. That’s the beginning.”

Democratic leaders in the House see the same erosion among Republicans on tax hikes for the wealthy. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) likened her party’s unity to last year’s payroll tax holiday fight, in which Republicans eventually capitulated and passed a plan they once opposed. Asked if the GOP would buckle, Pelosi said, “I wouldn’t say buckle. See the light might be a better term.”

Top Republicans in both chambers say that’s all wishful thinking, and the gap between the parties was laid bare Thursday. Republican leaders scoffed at an Obama administration proposal that they characterized as $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, $400 billion in cuts to entitlement programs, a permanent clean debt ceiling hike and $50 billion in infrastructure spending, calling it a major step back in the high-stakes talks. There was laughter in the room when it was presented to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to a McConnell aide.

Republicans argue there’s no way the GOP-controlled House and robust Senate GOP minority would agree to any revenue increases without far more significant upfront spending cuts locked in.

And by and large, the party is united in the belief that all tax rates should be extended — even for the top 2 percent of wage earners, saying doing otherwise would imperil the economy. Any revenue, they argue, should come via other means, such as capping deductions or closing tax loopholes claimed by high earners.

“We have a whole history in this country that when taxes go up — with the promise of future spending cuts that never materialize,” said Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, No. 4 in Senate GOP leadership. “We’re suspicious of that.”

But in recent days, there’s been more slippage among Republicans on their once unmovable position against any tax hikes.

If Boehner doesn't deliver on those tax cuts for the 98% after we go over the cliff on December 31st, Nancy Pelosi will be the Speaker of the House in 2014. Period.

If the Democrats don't let Boehner go over the cliff (since he pushed himself 3/4 of the way already), then they should be sued for political malpractice. Double period.

And should neither of those two things happen, and the Democrats somehow find a way to botch this one even though they are holding all the cards now, I swear to God, I'm changing my registration to Independent next year and will try to persuade everyone I know to do the same. Triple period.

You're in DC, not Vegas... don't be gambling with our economy, dammit.

They ALL need to bite the bullet and raise the eligibility age for SS/medicare by a year every-other-year for the next 30 years to bring it back in line with where eligibilty and average lifespan was in 1940 when socialist security started paying out. Starting now, not kicking the can down the road, nor proposing changes that won't take effect for 50 years, nor turning it into a coupon club that doesn't even pay for 20% of a health insurance policy (I can just hear Homer Simpson now, "Doh! Premium... mmmmm... premium is the BEST! That's the kind of support *I* want").

Merriam-Webster doesn't agree with you. Look it up. Democracy is the will of the people (majority) through the election of representatives. Given that the President won more votes - electorally and popularly the majority agree with his vision and or position on this issue. Again why should he negotiate again? de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-?mä-kr?-s?\ plural de·moc·ra·cies Definition of DEMOCRACY 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Ideally, the Republicans won’t be seen as “caving,” but instead being logical and reasonable. The Republican party could still retain all of what it values (if it is truly America) if it were exactly the same financially and socially as the current Democratic party... This would also encourage the Democratic party to move even further left than its current moderate position. But really, nothing positive will be accomplished if the Republicans feel demoralized from making the correct economic choice by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

POLITICO - pass a tax cut plan for families who earn less than $250,000.

This alone gets Republicans "Off the Hook" for any blame (w/no violation of Norquist-Pledge = not a Rate-Hike yet on anyone)

THEN

On January 1, 2013 comes the end of Bush-Cuts f/top-2% = (actually not in violation of Norquist either ie it was a "Temp-cut on passage w/ddd")

Of Course I'd rather have a deal w/ 37.7% vs 39.6% and 'save-face' with a few Caps on Top-Deductions + maybe some Hedge-Fund or Cap-Gains $$$ chip-in 2%-points

BUT THE BASE---- ah yes, Cuts ....

Well,

#1- "Means-Testing on all Entitlements"

#2- Separate The Lawyers From SS-Disability-Claims Process and do a %-disable for Social Security-D as does USDOD's VetAdm = ; thus, those who can do part-time, limited duty or even change careers "Never Get FULL SS-Disability"

"'I’m beginning to think that the president may want to drive the country off the fiscal cliff to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the government and the debt he’s created,' said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a close McConnell ally. 'I’m astonished by the way he’s conducted himself the last couple weeks.'" (Politico)

Alexander and McConnell and Boehner know it will be the Republicans, not President Obama and the Democrats, who will be seen as responsible if we go over any fiscal cliff. The Senate Republicans have already joined the Senate Democrats in passing legislation that keeps the old Bush tax cuts for 98% of US. If only the House Republicans wouldn't drive US over the cliff if they don't get their tax cuts for the richest 2%, but would join with House Democrats to pass the legislation the Senate has already passed, then most of the fiscal cliff danger would be eliminated. All it takes is a simple vote to do the right thing for 98% of working Americans. The vote should be held this week -- today. Next week at the latest.

I have long held that the Republicans, by and large, have sold out the American people, that Republicans are big business bootlickers, bought and owned by the richest and most powerful. I contend this is still the sad case. But tactically, Republicans and their masters can't afford all the voters to know and believe this about Republicans, else they will win fewer and fewer races in the future. Republicans have to tell their masters that their hands are tied; that as much as they'd like to, they can't afford taking the country over the cliff for the sake of unaffordable tax cuts for the richest 2%. It brands them deeply as the political party that exclusively serves the rich and will threaten raising taxes on everyone if they can't further enrich the richest. It simply looks too bad. Republicans can't afford to look that bad (though they are that bad). Look, therefore, for Republicans to cave (after doing more damage to their political image by stalling more). Look for them to pass the House version of the Senate bill before the new year.

Dear Republicans: This should be easy. Accept the Obama administration's $1.6 trillion request. Then go on national television and pressure Democrats to bring to the table $1.6 trillion in spending cuts. Win the PR war by showing you have done your part and put the Democrats on the defensive. Obama clearly demonstrated that politics of division works. Use it!

The Republicans were willing to increase revenues by $800 billion in 2011 when Boehner and Obama agreed to compromise. However, Obama reneged within 48 hours after Harry Reid demanded $1.2 trillion in revenue increases. Now that Obama was reelected with 6 million FEWER votes than he received in 2008, the Democrats have raised that figure to $1.6 trillion.

President Obama, "Where is your plan?". Mañana is not a plan! You BSed about cutting federal spending by $4 trillion. "Where is your plan?". O.K. You can look and read from your TelePromper, but "Where is your plan?"

A year ago, they could have made a much better deal. Instead, the GOP bet on winning the White House and the Senate. Well, it turns out a majority of voters didn't want that. When you go for the whole pot and lose, you reap the consequences.

Now, the Bush tax cuts are set to sunset. If nothing is passed, the Bush tax cuts are gone. If Republicans refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts for people who earn less than 250K because they want to protect tax cuts for wealthier individuals, they'll be blamed.

As soon as middle class workers see the higher bite out of their paychecks, Republicans will be vilified. They'll very quickly agree to a plan very similar to what Obama is proposing.

They should have taken the grand bargain Boehner wanted last year, but coudn't sell to the Tea Party.

The Republicans were willing to increase revenues by $800 billion in 2011 when Boehner and Obama agreed to compromise.

That's not accurate. Boehner presented that proposal to the House GOP caucus and it was immediately shot down. They never agreed to anything.

NeilC: Nov. 30, 2012 - 7:32 AM EST

Now that Obama was reelected with 6 million FEWER votes than he received in 2008, the Democrats have raised that figure to $1.6 trillion.

He finished with well over 3 million more votes than Romney. Republicans still can't seem to understand that they lost this election.

Funny - when Bush lost the popular vote, it didn't stop him from passing unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthy using the reconciliation process to get around a filibuster in a Senate Republicans controlled by one vote. Now you want to argue that Obama, who did win the popular vote, doesn't have a mandate to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.